How Does the World Define Atheism?
Edward Cooper
How Does the World Define Atheism?
Atheists need to come down from their ivory tower, where they
learnedly discuss 'weak' atheism, 'strong' atheism, and
agnosticism; to see how the world of Xtians and other believers
define atheism.
Atheism: "The denial of the existence of God."
or in its more invidious form:
"Atheism is an evil for all time and all places, which
refuses to acknowledge the magnificent glory of God."
In other words, believers not only show their ability to twist
the language to suit their narrow dogmatic goals , but also reveal
their predilection to perjoritizing those words that they don't
like.
TV evangelists, if you can believe their words, would like to
see atheism returned to being a capital crime.
99.95% of all believers consider the profession of atheism to
be a non-redemptible evil. Deal with it.
Edward Cooper :You can't teach an old dogma new tricks.
VA
Pacificus
Edward Cooper wrote:
> TV evangelists, if you can believe their words, would like to
> see atheism returned to being a capital crime.
>
> 99.95% of all believers consider the profession of atheism to
> be a non-redemptible evil. Deal with it.
Not a bad point, although as always, one must ask what are the
alternatives? Without agreeing to the statistics, I would agree that our
society is always closer to persecution that it seems. A twist here, a
wrinkle there, and we could move to a situation those not showing up for
weekly worship services could be in serious trouble. There are as we
speak small towns in the U.S. where not worshiping will result in
social ostracism and economic problems if you depend on the community,
e.g., doing business in real estate, having a small business, etc.
So, what do you suggest? Isn't it is in everyone's interest to 'deal
with it'? Wwho knows what group will be persecuted next, and you might
be in it.
Pacificus
Natalie Ramsey
Followups trimmed.
Edward Cooper (crys...@cpcug.org) wrote:
: How Does the World Define Atheism?
: Atheists need to come down from their ivory tower, where they
: learnedly discuss 'weak' atheism, 'strong' atheism, and
: agnosticism; to see how the world of Xtians and other believers
: define atheism.
: Atheism: "The denial of the existence of God."
Since when is "other believers" synonymous with "monotheists"?
[snip]
: 99.95% of all believers consider the profession of atheism to
: be a non-redemptible evil. Deal with it.
Either name your source or admit this is a bald-faced assertion.
Blessings,
Natalie
--
Natalie Overstreet Ramsey - <nat...@col.hp.com> - ** I don't speak for HP **
Upon the advice of my attorney, my .sig has no comment at this time.
Larry Phillips
In article <crystalc.1...@cpcug.org>,
Who cares?
> Atheists need to come down from their ivory tower, where they
> learnedly discuss 'weak' atheism, 'strong' atheism, and
> agnosticism; to see how the world of Xtians and other believers
> define atheism.
We don't care how Xtians or Christians define it. They are obviously
wrong, and most will freely admit that they do not understand atheism.
How, then, can they hope to define it?
> Atheism: "The denial of the existence of God."
I, an atheist, do not 'deny the existence of God or Jehova, or Allah,
or Ra, or Cthulhu. I do not acknowledge that the concepts of any such
beings has any meaning at all.
> or in its more invidious form:
>
> "Atheism is an evil for all time and all places, which
> refuses to acknowledge the magnificent glory of God."
>
> In other words, believers not only show their ability to twist
> the language to suit their narrow dogmatic goals , but also reveal
> their predilection to perjoritizing those words that they don't
> like.
Your use of the term 'believers' is interesting. Are you referring to the
Christians or Xttians? I do not 'disbelieve' in the existence of a god
any more than I 'disbelieve' that when you multiply your desk by your car
the result is chicken laughter. The concept is meaningless.
> TV evangelists, if you can believe their words, would like to
> see atheism returned to being a capital crime.
Can YOU believe their words? Most sane folks can't. I would like to see
TV evangelists strapped to a chair and forced to listen to each others'
sermons set to rap music.
> 99.95% of all believers consider the profession of atheism to
> be a non-redemptible evil. Deal with it.
I doin't have to deal with it. You, apparently do. So be it.
> Edward Cooper :You can't teach an old dogma new tricks.
Edward, you can't teach an old Xtian new tricks either. I think that
says something, but I'm not sure what.
--
Socrates said that no man is truly free.
Socrates was never a pilot.
erikc
crys...@cpcug.org (Edward Cooper)
in message <crystalc.1...@cpcug.org>
dated Thu, 21 Nov 1996 22:35:01 UNDEFINED
wrote to alt.atheism, among others:
| How Does the World Define Atheism?
| Atheists need to come down from their ivory tower, where they
|learnedly discuss 'weak' atheism, 'strong' atheism, and
|agnosticism; to see how the world of Xtians and other believers
|define atheism.
| Atheism: "The denial of the existence of God."
| or in its more invidious form:
| "Atheism is an evil for all time and all places, which
|refuses to acknowledge the magnificent glory of God."
| In other words, believers not only show their ability to twist
|the language to suit their narrow dogmatic goals , but also reveal
|their predilection to perjoritizing those words that they don't
|like.
| TV evangelists, if you can believe their words, would like to
|see atheism returned to being a capital crime.
| 99.95% of all believers consider the profession of atheism to
|be a non-redemptible evil. Deal with it.
I see we have another candidate for the DUMFUCK award. Mr. Smith, do you think
this guy merits a DICK?
|Edward Cooper :You can't teach an old dogma new tricks.
| VA
Erikc.
Fundamentalism -- a disease whose symptoms include
diarrhea of the mouth and constipation of the brain.
http://www.christiangallery.com/ (home page)
http://www.christiangallery.com/sick1.html#bugger
/* Finest Christian porn on the 'Net */
Mats Andtbacka
Edward Cooper, in <crystalc.1...@cpcug.org>:
> How Does the World Define Atheism?
nice troll, but too obvious. the newsgroups line gave you away right
off the bat.
--
"...Everybody got this broken feeling
like their father or their dog just died..."
- Leonard Cohen
Edward Cooper
Mats Andtbacka (mand...@news.abo.fi) wrote:
: Edward Cooper, in <crystalc.1...@cpcug.org>:
: > How Does the World Define Atheism?
:
: nice troll, but too obvious. the newsgroups line gave you away right
: off the bat.
This was not a troll.
Atheists are losing to intense Xtian propaganda the battle to
define what atheism is. The consequences are not academic.
--
Edward H. Cooper :The cost is outrageous, the position is
VA :ridiculous, and the feeling is fleeting.
: Lord Chesterfield
Stephen Townshend
I don't know about anybody else but I define atheism by looking it up in
a dictionary.
Duh!
- Me (or someone like him)
Mats Andtbacka
(followups trimmed)
Edward Cooper, in <57j74e$e...@news4.digex.net>:
[...]
>Atheists are losing to intense Xtian propaganda the battle to
>define what atheism is. The consequences are not academic.
as so much else in *.atheism this seems regional. maybe in the U.S.
what you say is regrettably the case, but over here no such battle
rages; if the xians here are fighting at all, it is to define
themselves and carve out a niche for themselves in a slowly but
steadily secularizing society. a minor, perhaps postmodern, perhaps
generation-Xer wave of neoconservatism seems to help them only
slightly, and not all the church leaders here always seem to
appreciate such help.
as i keep saying, a wonderful place to be a heathen infidel. :-)
except for the climate; we could use some fire and brimstone this time
of year...
George C. Lindauer
Edward Cooper (crys...@cpcug.org) wrote:
: Mats Andtbacka (mand...@news.abo.fi) wrote:
: : Edward Cooper, in <crystalc.1...@cpcug.org>:
: : > How Does the World Define Atheism?
: :
: : nice troll, but too obvious. the newsgroups line gave you away right
: : off the bat.
: {clip...}
:
: This was not a troll.
: Atheists are losing to intense Xtian propaganda the battle to
: define what atheism is. The consequences are not academic.
Sure they are. Anyone it would matter to would be neither atheistic or
christian... they would make up their own names for themselves. The people
who try to hold onto a pretty name are going to get what they ask for...
and like usual it is NOT going to be pretty.
David
: --
Keith A. Schneider
jmki...@watarts.uwaterloo.ca (AverageJoe) writes:
>Dictionaries are after all only as good as those who publish them and
>atheists are still a minority in the world.
Your claim that dictionary publishers are biased against atheism is
quite remakable. Prove it.
keith
Garrison Netzel
On 30 Nov 1996 04:48:04 GMT, George C. Lindauer wrote...
>Sure they are. Anyone it would matter to would be neither atheistic or
>christian... they would make up their own names for themselves. The people
>who try to hold onto a pretty name are going to get what they ask for...
>and like usual it is NOT going to be pretty.
>
>David
That's pretty creepy, David. Is Jesus telling you this?
--
Garrison Netzel
do...@faribault.polaristel.net
---------------------------------
Kevin Dempsey Peterson
Webster's Ninth Collegiate:
"atheism. . . 1 a: a disbelief in the existence of [a] deity b: the
doctrine that there is no deity 2: UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
atheist . . .:one who denies the existence of God. . ."
I would not say that dictionary makers are biased against atheism,
because I don't know what that means; it's not specific enough. I
would say that the definitions in Webster's 1. presuppose the exist-
ence of God, 2. misrepresents the atheist viewpoint, and 3. could be
offensive to atheists.
1. The phrasing "denies" carries the connotation that what one is
denying is, if not true, at least the first, most obvious belief.
Just think through a few sentences to see if you can a way to use
'deny' to say you don't believe in something that no one has assumed.
The fact that "deity" and "God" are used pretty much interchangably,
despite the fact that a wiccan would fit the definition of atheist,
denying the existance of the Judeo/Christian/Muslim god, which is
what is meant by God when capitalized, while clearly not believing
atheism, according the dictionaries definition, means that the only
way the definition can make sense is if one assumes that the exist-
ence of a deity implies the existence of the J/C/M god.
2. There is a natural class that can be composed of people who do
not believe in the existance of a god, or anything supernatural.
These people are most easily described by the term "atheists," and
their point of view best described as "atheism." However, those who
would be described as "weak" or "negative" atheists, (i.e. "I don't
believe in God"), do not fit the dictionary definition. A disbelief
implies that one has a belief that a statement is false. A better
term would be `unbelief,' but since that isn't a common enough word,
`lack of belief' would be the best way to describe it. You could
make a similar case for denies suggesting an active belief as op-
posed to passive lack of belief. Only "strong" or "positive" athe-
ists fit the dictionary definition, so if one were to assume that
the dictionary definition were true, it would imply that anyone who
does not believe in the J/C/M god has an active belief that there
is no deity. (see arguement one) Try that one out on a Hindu friend.
3. The phrase "the doctrine that" is very offensive to me, an atheist.
Point proven beyond any possible doubt. Atheism isn't a doctrine.
In short, if the dictionary definition were correct, it would mean
that 1. the existence of a deity implies the existence of the J/C/M
god, and 2. anyone who lacks a belief in the J/C/M god adheres to a
doctrine that there is no god. I won't call it bias, because it
could have also been due to the fact that they don't really have the
time to edit the dictionary to be biased against anyone. I'd guess
that if it had gone through the hands of a single atheist, it would
have been changed to something like "one who lacks a belief in a god
or gods."
---------------------Kevin Dempsey Peterson---------------------
ke...@cafe.berkeley.edu kev...@uclink4.berkeley.edu
Sophomore, Cognitive Science, University of California, Berkeley
George C. Lindauer
Garrison Netzel (do...@faribault.polaristel.net) wrote:
: On 30 Nov 1996 04:48:04 GMT, George C. Lindauer wrote...
:
: >Sure they are. Anyone it would matter to would be neither atheistic or
: >christian... they would make up their own names for themselves. The people
: >who try to hold onto a pretty name are going to get what they ask for...
: >and like usual it is NOT going to be pretty.
: >
: >David
:
: That's pretty creepy, David. Is Jesus telling you this?
No. Should he be? But like usual I am speaking out of experience.
David
:
:
: --
: Garrison Netzel
: do...@faribault.polaristel.net
: ---------------------------------
:
Stephen Townshend
The question was: How does the WORLD define atheism. By world I assume
the author means the world at large. The best place to look then is a
dictionary.
Right or wrong biased or not, that's still how the world defines
atheism. Atheists may see it otherwise but dictionaries are the best
reflection of generally accepted meaning.
- Me (the last time I checked)
P.S. Is this satire?